Pediatric Drugs

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 515–522 | Cite as

Do Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIPs) Advance Paediatric Healthcare?

  • Klaus Rose
  • Philip D. Walson
Current Opinion


Since 2007, new drugs need a paediatric investigation plan (PIP) for EU registration. The PIPs’ justifications can be traced back to concerns expressed by Shirkey that label warnings against paediatric use made children “therapeutic orphans”, and the American Academy of Pediatrics’ claim that all children differ considerably from adults. US legislation first encouraged, then also required, separate, adult-style safety and efficacy studies in all paediatric subpopulations. This triggered paediatric regulatory studies by the pharmaceutical industry. There were also negative outcomes, as a result of using the legal definition of childhood as a medical/physiological term. The “therapeutic orphans” concept became dogma that supported/expanded adult-style regulatory testing into all age groups even when poorly justified in adolescents or where other methods are available to generate needed data. PIPs are especially problematic because they lack the limitations imposed on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) regulatory actions and more practical approaches used in the USA. Many PIP studies are medically senseless or even questionable and/or unfeasible with poor risk/benefit ratios. For example, physiologically mature adolescents have been exposed to treatments and doses known to be suboptimal in adults. Unfeasible PIP studies in rare diseases may harm patients by preventing their participation in more beneficence-driven studies. PIP-required studies can prevent effective treatment of allergic rhinitis during years of placebo treatment, exposing minors to the risk of disease progression to asthma. The PIP system should be revised; more should be done by key players, including institutional review boards/ethics committees, to ensure that all paediatric clinical studies are medically justified, rather than legislation driven, and can produce scientifically valid results.


Compliance with Ethical Standards

No actual trials were done or subjects recruited/involved in this Opinion paper. Therefore no IRB/EC review was requested or done.

Conflict of interest

Dr. Rose has worked for 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry in drug development and medical affairs. Independent since 2011, he consults on pediatric drug development, teaches, organizes scientific conferences, edits books, and publishes. His main clients are small, medium-size and large pharmaceutical companies. He is also father of a daughter with a rare disease and is biased against governmental empty promises. Dr. Walson reports potential conflicts with his private consulting company (Walson Consulting LLC) that has provided fee for service consultation to the pharmaceutical industry and contract research organizations as well as to US and EU not-for-profit governmental funded research organizations (e.g., Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, FP7 health projects, and the Innovative Medicines Initiative) and paid participation in numerous conferences devoted to pediatric clinical trials and drug development.


No grants or funds have been involved in the authorship of this article. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest in this work.


  1. 1.
    Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Official Journal of the European Union, 27.12.2006, L 378/1 - L 278/19. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  2. 2.
    Rose K. Pediatric pharmaceutical legislation in the USA and EU and their impact on adult and pediatric drug development. In: Bar-Shalom D, Rose K, editors. Pediatric formulations—a roadmap. AAPS & Springer: New York; 2014. p. 405–20 (Chapter 28).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mentzer D. Progress review of the European Paediatric Regulatory Framework after six years of implementation. Int J Pharm. 2014;469:240–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hilts PJ. Protecting America’s health: the FDA, business, and one hundred years of regulation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kefauver-Harris amendments revolutionized drug development. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  6. 6.
    Shirkey H. Therapeutic orphans. Pediatrics. 1999;104:583–4. (Reprint of the original article from 1968)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Drugs. Guidelines for the ethical conduct of studies to evaluate drugs in pediatric populations. Pediatrics. 1977;60:91–101.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Committee on Drugs, American Academy of Pediatrics. Guidelines for the ethical conduct of studies to evaluate drugs in pediatric populations. Pediatrics. 1995;95:286–94.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blumer JE. Off-label uses of drugs in children. Pediatrics. 1999;104:598–602.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donohoe J. A history of drug advertising: the evolving roles of consumers and consumer protection. Milbank Q. 2006;84:659–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    AAP. Clinical report—guidelines for the ethical conduct of studies to evaluate drugs in pediatric populations. Pediatrics. 2010;125:850–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frattarelli DA, Galinkin JL, Green TP, Johnson TD, Neville KA, Paul IM, et al. Off-label use of drugs in children. Pediatrics. 2014;133:563–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Adamson PC. Improving the outcome for children with cancer: development of targeted new agents. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:212–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rose K, Walson PD. The contributions of the European Medicines Agency and its pediatric committee to the fight against childhood leukemia. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2015;8:185–205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Philip AG. The evolution of neonatology. Pediatr Res. 2005;58(4):799–815.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Noonan JA. A history of pediatric specialties: the development of pediatric cardiology. Pediatr Res. 2004;56:298–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kearns GL, Abdel-Rahman SM, Alander SW, Blowey DL, Leeder JS, Kauffman RE. Developmental pharmacology—drug disposition, action, and therapy in infants and children. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1157–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act Of 1997. [[Page 111 STAT. 2296]]. Public Law 105–115. 105th Congress. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  19. 19.
    FDA 2014. General clinical pharmacology considerations for pediatric studies for drugs and biological products. Guidance for industry. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  20. 20.
    FDA 2016. FDA Update: anti-epileptic drug efficacy in adults can be extrapolated to pediatric patients. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  21. 21.
    FDA 2017. Avelumab prescribing information. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  22. 22.
    FDA expands approved use of Kalydeco to treat additional mutations of cystic fibrosis. Laboratory evidence used to support efficacy. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  23. 23.
    Stephenson T. Medicines for children—the last century and the next. Arch Dis Child. 2001;85:177–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chalumeau M, Tréluyer JM, Salanave B, Assathiany R, Chéron G, Crocheton N, et al. Off label and unlicensed drug use among French office based paediatricians. Arch Dis Child. 2000;83:502–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Turner S, Nunn AJ, Fielding K, Choonara I. Adverse drug reactions to unlicensed and off-label drugs on paediatric wards: a prospective study. Acta Paediatr. 1999;88:965–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    EMA 1998. Report on the experts round table on the difficulties related to the use of new medicinal products in children held on 18 December 1997. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  27. 27.
    Choonara I, Dunne J. Licensing of medicines. Arch Dis Child. 1998;78:402–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    EMA 2004. Evidence of harm from off-label or unlicensed medicines in children. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  29. 29.
    The Belmont Report. Office of the Secretary. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. April 18, 1979. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  30. 30.
    EMA 2011: EMA Decision CW/1/2011 on a class waiver on condition(s) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  31. 31.
    Rose K, Walson PD. Do the European Medicines Agency (EMA) decisions hurt pediatric melanoma patients? Clin Ther. 2017;39:253–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    BRIM-P. A study of vemurafenib in pediatric patients with stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma harboring BRAFV600 mutations. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  33. 33.
    Phase 2 study of ipilimumab in children and adolescents (12 to <18 years) with previously treated or untreated, unresectable stage III or stage lV malignant melanoma. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  34. 34.
    A study of pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in pediatric participants with advanced melanoma or advanced, relapsed, or refractory PD-L1-positive solid tumors or lymphoma (MK-3475-051/KEYNOTE-051). Accessed 26 May 2017.
  35. 35.
    A study to determine safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of oral dabrafenib in children and adolescent subjects. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  36. 36.
    To find a safe dose and show early clinical activity of weekly nab-paclitaxel in pediatric patients with recurrent/refractory solid tumors. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  37. 37.
    A phase I/II, multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study of the safety and pharmacokinetics of cobimetinib in pediatric and young adult patients with previously treated solid tumors. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  38. 38.
    Rose K. European Union pediatric legislation jeopardizes worldwide, timely future advances in the care of children with cancer. Clin Ther. 2014;36:163–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rose K, Senn. Drug development: EU paediatric legislation, the European Medicines Agency and its Paediatric Committee—adolescents’ melanoma as a paradigm. Pharm Stat. 2014;13:211–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rose K, Mueller T. Children with multiple sclerosis should not become therapeutic hostages. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2016;9:389–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rose K, Happle R. The impact of regulation on pediatric psoriasis drug approvals: the challenge of the European Union (EU) pediatric investigation plans (PIPs). Pediatr Dermatol. 2017;34:e154–9. doi: 10.1111/pde.13097.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    European Medicines Agency decision CW-0001-2015 of 23 July 2015 on class waivers in accordance with Regulation EC No 1901-2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  43. 43.
    Tsilochristou OA, Douladiris N, Makris M, Papadopoulos NG. Pediatric allergic rhinitis and asthma: can the march be halted? Pediatr Drugs. 2013;15:431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rose K, Kopp MV. Pediatric investigation plans for specific immunotherapy: questionable contributions to childhood health. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2015;26(8):695–701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    10-Year Report to the European Commission. General report on the experience acquired as a result of the application of the Paediatric Regulation. Accessed 26 May 2017.
  46. 46.
    Laughon MM, Benjamin DK Jr, Capparelli EV, et al. Innovative clinical trial design for pediatric therapeutics. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2011;4:643–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gonzalez D, Melloni C, Yogev R et al. Use of opportunistic clinical data and a population pharmacokinetic model to support dosing of clindamycin for premature infants to adolescents. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;96(4):429–37.
  48. 48.
    Pediatric Trials Network. Accessed 26 May 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.klausrose Consulting, Pediatric Drug Development and MoreRiehenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Walson Consulting, LLCSeattleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Clinical PharmacologyUniversity Medical CenterGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations